HC Deb 24 April 1963 vol 676 cc293-327
Mr. Manuel

I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, at the end to insert: less the amount of any rebates granted by the council under a rent rebate scheme to which no objection has been taken by the Secretary of State".

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston)

It would be convenient to take with this Amendment the following Amendments in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland, in page 3, line 9 and in page 4, lines 7, 9, 12 and 13.

Mr. Manuel

The principle that we are trying to incorporate into the Clause is that a local authority's notional rent income in the year 1963–64 shall be 85 per cent. less the amount of any rebates granted by the council under any rebate scheme to which no objection has been taken by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Under the Bill as at present drafted, a local authority would need to charge in the first year 85 per cent. of the gross annual value in rent, plus the cost of any rebate scheme. The fact that the rents would be fixed at 85 per cent. of the gross annual value in the first year, 90 per cent. in the second year and 95 per cent. in the third year, plus the cost of any rebates, must inevitably drive up the rents considerably and increase the number qualifying for rebated rent.

Previously, everybody has been agreed that the cost of rent rebate schemes should fall to be met by all ratepayers within a local authority area. Under the Bill, however, this will not be the case unless a local authority contracts out of the qualifying conditions for the full payment of Exchequer equalisation grant. The intention of the Bill is to exclude everyone who is not living in a local authority house from contributing to rent rebates. In the main, these would be the higher income groups.

There has been no real assessment of the number of people who will be driven to apply for rent rebates because of low income. It is surely elementary that the higher the rents are fixed, the greater the number of people who will qualify for rebates. Owing to the strong arguments used in Committee on the question of rent rebates, the Secretary of State now brings forward what he hopes will be a face- saving Amendment in case the circumstances governing rent rebates become so out of hand that schemes are unworkable.

I am not sure who is the author of this new proposition and whether it emanates from the Scottish Office. I should not have liked to have been associated with it. I am amazed that people who have to draft a Bill in connection with Exchequer equalisation grant should have had thrust upon them the job of embodying within it something to do with rents because of the spleen and venom which has been exhibited for years by members of the Tory Party in Scotland, many of them out of touch with the real facts of life. Scottish Tory Party Ministers have become ready and willing tools to carry out this uninformed intention that at all costs local authority rents must be increased.

I dislike intensely the Government's Amendment. I would dismiss it completely if it did not leave local authorities to decide whether they wished to be treated in the way that it provides. It is obnoxious to me. As, however, its acceptance by the local authorities is voluntary, possibly the, decision can be left to them.

Let us be clear what we are doing. Despite all the talk we had in Standing Committee, this new proposal by the Government will drive rents higher. It sets a third table of 90, 95 and 100 per cent. of the gross value that the local authorities will need to fix in rent if they are to be allowed the cost of rent rebates on the income side of their housing revenue account.

7.15 p.m.

Secondly, if this proposal is adopted by a local authority it will surely drive many more tenants within the ambit of any rent rebate schemes. If this new proposition concerning rent rebates is adopted by a local authority, it is bound to increase substantially the number of people who would qualify to be considered in a rent rebate scheme.

Thirdly, this proposal does not give a local authority freedom to cover the cost of rent rebate schemes by rateborne expenditure over the whole body of ratepayers. Councils with the real welfare of their communities at heart will not accept this red herring. If the cost of rent rebate schemes rises above 5 per cent. of their notional rent income some councils may consider it, but I do not think that many will accept it. The Under-Secretary of State may, perhaps, point out that this would mean a certain proportion being rateborne if the rent rebate scheme measured up to as much as, say, 8 per cent. of the notional rent income. It might, however, measure up to only 4 per cent. I have a shrewd suspicion that the Under-Secretary has a good idea of the average cost to local authorities of their rent rebate schemes. He is budgeting safely in this respect.

I am sorry that the Under-Secretary did not take the clean-cut idea which I submitted to him earlier and allow the straight set of figures in the original Bill of 85, 90 and 95 per cent. instead of staging rents a bit higher, which will nullify completely any intention which he may have of local authorities agreeing to adopt his scheme.

I advise the Committee to accept my Amendment as the only solution to the rent rebate problem. I have a support for my attitude. Unlike the Under-Secretary of State, I do not need to meet the local authority associations. The Ayrshire Burghs Association has informed me that at a meeting held on Wednesday, 20th February, the hon. clerk and treasurer was instructed to write to the Department requesting that the Association's views on the subject of Section 3 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill be conveyed to the Secretary of State. The Association was unanimously of the view that subparagraph 3 of paragraph 3 should be amended to the effect that the income receivable from rents was a reference to the income so receivable without making allowance for any rebates granted by the council. I shall be grateful if you would be good enough to bring the Association's views to the notice of the Secretary of State.

I told the Under-Secretary that similar views were held concerning unemployment. Unanimously, the whole 17 burghs in Ayrshire communicated with the Secretary of State giving their views on unemployment. They are doing the same thing concerning rent rebates. The Under-Secretary would not accuse me of being able to influence 17 burghs in the County of Ayr, many of them controlled by members of his own political party.

Nevertheless, we have this unanimous decision. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell me what reply he has sent to these local authorities concerning rent rebates, although he did not give the answer in the case of unemployment, on which we have just voted. I hope that the Committee will agree that we should agree to rent rebates in the terms of my Amendment.

Mr. Leburn

From the very fact that we are also discussing the Government Amendment, in page 4, line 7, I think the Committee will see that I am not altogether unsympathetic in certain circumstances to reductions as a result of rebate schemes being taken into account in the various calculations to be made under Clause 3(3). I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) has said, but I really cannot accept the proposals contained in this Amendment, and I hope that I can persuade him why and that I have good grounds for saying that.

His Amendment would set off the rebates against the percentages of 85, 90 and 95 in the table. I want to tell the hon. Member that this table was devised originally to take rebates into account. It was devised specifically having rebates in mind. What the hon. Gentleman is proposing is that in spite of allowance having already been made for rebates as a whole there should again be allowance for them. He is, in effect, asking that rent rebates should be taken into account twice.

There is an additional difficulty. The Secretary of State, under this Amendment, would have to accept any kind of rent rebate scheme unless he were to take specific objection to it. The Amendment makes no provision for rent rebate schemes to be submitted to the Secretary of State for observation. I do not think that this is really the right way to go about consideration of rent rebate schemes.

Mr. Ross

I wonder if the hon. Gentleman will tell me just exactly what is the difference between the words to which no objection has been taken in this Amendment and the words in his Amendment, which say that the schemes have got to be approved?

Mr. Leburn

Only to this extent, that under the Government Amendment local authorities will have to submit their rent rebate schemes to the Secretary of State, whereas under this Amendment the Secretary of State will have to ferret out the schemes and he will have to see what action he will take,

Mr. Willis

Surely this is really only a quibble? The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that if the words are not satisfactory he can get them changed when they go to another place.

Mr. Leburn

If the hon. Gentleman does not want me to found on that, I am quite prepared to found on the original argument I put.

I would obviously prefer the Government Amendment. I should like first of all to explain to the Committee its effect and then describe some of the considerations which have led to it. The Government Amendment introduces the alternative method of calculating deductions from Exchequer equalisation grant under Clause 3 to be operated at the request of individual authorities for particular years. Under the Clause as it stands at present notional rent income is a percentage of the gross annual value of the houses, 85 per cent. for 1963–64, 90 per cent. for 1964–65, and 95 per cent. for any subsequent year.

As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Ayrshire realises, the local authority would be able as an alternative to require the Secretary of State to make the calculation on this alternative basis, namely, that the notional rent income should be 90 per cent. for 1963–64, 95 per cent. for 1964–65, and 100 per cent. thereafter of gross annual values less the actual amount of rent rebates granted under an approved rent rebate scheme. Thus an authority which granted rebates under an approved scheme, let us say, in 1965–66 of an equivalent of 7 per cent. of gross annual value of its houses would be entitled normally to have the Clause 3 calculation done on that basis of the notional rent of 93 per cent. of gross annual value instead of the present 95 per cent.

In order for this alternative method of calculating the grant to operate, the rebate scheme must, of course, receive the approval of the Secretary of State. I think that hon. Members will appreciate this point, since for the purpose of calculating Exchequer grant there must obviously be some control. I think that it will be clear that the broad purpose of the Amendment is to allow actual rebates to be taken into account, and if a local authority charges a rent equivalent to gross annual value in the case of the normal tenant, 90 per cent. or 95 per cent. in the two earlier years, it will not suffer any reduction of grant for granting rebates under an approved scheme.

There is a link here with what I said in previous discussions about Clause 1 about the reason why local authorities do not want the weighting factor in the grant for unemployment. The only field in which expenditure does not in fact attract additional grant is where local authorities stand to suffer a deduction from grant under Clause 3, and consequently high rent rebates because of unemployment would not be offset by more Exchequer equalisation grant. This is one of the paints which was in the minds of my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) and of my other hon. Friends and, I think, also at, one stage in the minds of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire.

In framing and introducing this Amendment I have tried to meet at least some of the difficulties which were referred to by those hon. Members in regard to local authorities which may have to grant high rebates because of unemployment. I might also mention that we have redrafted the Amendment to try to simplify it and make it a little more clear. These Amendments meet the case for taking special account of unemployment in the grant system in so far as it is not already taken into account.

I hope that hon. Members will feel disposed to accept the Amendment. I want to say to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire that I am the author of this Amendment, so I hope he will not cast any aspersions or criticism at others in the Scottish Office.

Mr. Manuel

I am delighted to hear it.

Mr. Leburn

I think that this is a good Amendment. I feel that it is, if one argues about this logically. If a local authority will charge gross annual value—and, as I have said before, I consider that in certain circumstances it could charge more—to those tenants who can afford it, and if it then comes to the Secretary of State with a reasonable rebate scheme which he approves, then there is no reason why it should suffer any deduction whatsoever. Even if there is a case—I cannot foresee it at the moment—where a local authority grants rebates because of high unemployment, or for other reasons of hardship, because, for instance, of a high percentage of old-age pensioners, whatever it may be, and has to grant rebates to the extent of 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. or even 50 per cent., then, provided that the rebate scheme is approved by the Secretary of State, the local authority will suffer no deduction of Exchequer equalisation grant. It seems to me that logically this is absolutely sensible.

Hon. Members opposite have made the point from the first day we sat in Committee that they are not against fair and reasonable rent schemes. If local authorities will charge fair and reasonable rent schemes, I am quite sure that the gross annual value is a perfectly reasonable guide given by an independent assessor. I do not see why normal tenants who can afford to pay should not charge those rents, and for those who cannot afford them, the local authorities should, I believe, introduce rebate schemes. If it is a reasonable one, it will certainly be approved by the Secretary of State and they need suffer no deductions under Clause 3.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Manuel

I think that the Under-Secretary of State ought to give a full picture. What he is doing is to push the rents up either to 95 per cent. or 100 per per cent. of the gross annual value, but he is also taking away certain expenditure that is at present rateborne and there is a loss of Exchequer equalisation grant anyhow to that local authority. The relevant expenditure will decrease and there will be a decrease in the amount of the Exchequer equalisation grant. Inevitably, he is also bound to drive a whole host of the lower income group people within the ambit of the rent rebate scheme, and that scheme will be paid for only by the people who are in municipal houses. No Christian group of people in this country will agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is the way a rebate scheme should operate.

Mr. Leburn

I do not dispute what the hon. Gentleman says—that if rents are increased a certain amount of the Exchequer equalisation grant is lost. We went into that in Committee upstairs. I repeat that the local authority will be compensated and perhaps compensated three, four or five times, by the increase; in the rents. On the hon. Gentleman's other point that it may bring a greater number of people into rent rebate schemes, that may be true, but I do not for a moment think that the difference between 95 per cent. and 100 per cent. will bring in a mass of extra people. Although I suppose that marginally it may well do so, I still feel that logically if a local authority does not wish to suffer a deduction from the Exchequer equalisation grant, then from those who can afford it it should expect to get gross annual value, and from those who cannot afford it there ought to be a properly approved rent rebate scheme. It can give those rebates and need not suffer any deduction under Clause 3.

Mr. McInnes

We are discussing a Bill relating to local government financial provisions, but in essence it is really a rent Bill. Fundamentally, it deals with the question of local authority rentals. In other words, if a local authority does not charge the rental laid down in the formula provided in the Bill, it loses its Exchequer equalisation grant.

The Under-Secretary indicated that on this side of the Committee we have frequently asserted that we are opposed to low rent policies. I acknowledge that. We have always indicated our acceptance of a reasonable rent. What I should like to know, in dealing with this Clause and Amendment, is what constitutes a reasonable rent? I remember that in Committee frequent references were made to the Public Accounts Committee. That is fundamentally where the question of rentals arose. I know that in the evidence laid on behalf of the Secretary of State before the Public Accounts Committee it was clearly stated that the Secretary of State regarded £39 a year as a reasonable rent. This figure is in the written evidence submitted to the Public Accounts Committee. That was on 9th February, 1961, when the evidence was laid before the Public Accounts Committee.

then there came the Housing Act, 1962, with its somewhat complicated formula. Again, we were to take the gross annual value of local authority houses and the figure arrived at by multiplying £60 by the total number of houses. That meant that if the gross annual value of a house was £46, this would be £14 less than £60, so one had to halve the £14, which gave £7, and add the £7 to the £46, which gave £53. Therefore, instead of £39 being a reasonable rent, £53 became a reasonable rent under the Housing Act, 1962.

In this Bill we have to take the notional income for the year 1963–64 at 90 per cent. of the gross annual value, working up in 1966 to 95 per cent. of the gross annual value, so in the next three years the local authority rentals, if they are to qualify for Exchequer equalisation grant, must reach the figure of 95 per cent. of the gross annual value by 1966, otherwise local authorities will lose their share of the Exchequer equalisation grant.

My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) dealt with the question of the rent rebate scheme. It is a peculiar position, but it is nevertheless a fact that each time a local authority increases rents it concurrently introduces a rent rebate scheme, because the tenants cannot afford the new rents. I will give a typical example. Dumfries County Council which charges 22s. per week has 2,443 tenants, but 2,132 of the tenants come within the rent rebate scheme. Is this the situation that the Under-Secretary of State wants to reach?

Mr. Brewis

What percentage of the gross annual value is represented by the rent income at Dumfries after the rebates have been deducted?

Mr. McInnes

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an indication as to the gross annual value. I am dealing with the factual situation in Dumfries.

Mr. Brewis

It is up to 95 per cent.

Mr. McInnes

I am glad of the hon. Gentleman's support. This is the situation that has developed and that I am complaining of. It is fantastic that a local authority such as Dumfries decides to increase rent for 2,443 tenants and then finds that 2,132 of them—88 per cent.—cannot afford the new rents. This is an intolerable situation.

I wish that the Secretary of State would, once and for all, make up his mind as to what constitutes a reasonable rent rather than introduce Measure after Measure containing complicated formulae which practically no one understands. Let him be honest about it and cut out these complicated formulae dealing with the Exchequer equalisation grants, gross annual value and the rest.

Why should not he merely say that the Government regard certain figures to be reasonable rents for five-apartment, four-apartment and three-apartment houses, and that unless local authorities impose such rentals they will lose their equalisation grants? Let the Government be straightforward about this instead of introducing complicated formulae surrounded with nonsense in order to conceal precisely what they are doing.

As the Under-Secretary of State has indicated, we on this side of the Committee are not opposed to reasonable rents. Indeed, we have gone further. We have indicated our opposition to low rental policies. I do not know what support he wants from this side of the Committee than that. But, instead, the Government bring us this Bill with its magic wands contained in almost every Clause waving in one direction or another. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider and accept our Amendment so that the position of the tenants may be somewhat eased.

Mr. Hendry

I am surprised that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) should describe this as a rent Bill. I do not know where he was during discussion of previous Amendments, when the subject of rents was completely out of order and scarcely mentioned at all. On the other hand, we have had a great deal of discussion and we have all tried to achieve some sort of formula whereby local authorities which are less well off and have a high level of unemployment can benefit by the equalisation grants. The proposals put forward by the Government and by the Opposition have the same end in view—that so far as possible a local authority which has a high level of unemployment should not suffer in the distribution of the equalisation grant.

There was a great deal of discussion on these lines in Committee upstairs and the Members opposite first of all suggested that the provisions whereby equalisation grant would be effected by low house rents should not apply to areas of high unemployment. The Committee decided against that because there were various objections to it. Now hon. Members opposite have suggested a method by which they think a reasonable compromise could be reached. On the other hand, my hon. Friend has produced what I think is a brilliant suggestion which is the only one which can reasonably achieve what we are all trying to do.

7.45 p.m.

Apart from the question of rents, we are all exercised a great deal about the best way of ensuring that areas of high unemployment receive all possible benefit from the equalisation grants. In Committee upstairs, my hon. Friend undertook to see what he could do to achieve this without these local authorities losing equalisation grants in the event of their having to reduce house rents. The difficulty was that if an area of high unemployment reduced house rents to a very high extent it would inevitably lose equalisation grants, because the total of house rents would inevitably be below the percentage stated in the Clause.

The only possible way by which this could be avoided was to make standard rents far above the gross annual value, and that would be wrong. If we take any criterion as to what is a reasonable rent for a council house, surely it is the gross annual value placed on it by the assessor, who is the properly appointed and skilled official for the purpose. In fixing the percentage in the Clause as originally drafted it seemed to me that my hon. Friend attempted to take into consideration the rebates which he might reasonably expect to take place in the average local authority area.

However, it was put to him very clearly by hon. Members on both sides upstairs that this percentage might not be the true percentage in a high unemployment area where there were a great many rebates and where the actual rent income might be far below what it was supposed to be. Now my hon. Friend has gone to a great deal of trouble about this, and I am certain that he must have Treasury consent to what he proposes. He is taking, ultimately, the gross annual value, which is a reason- able rent, but if a local authority wishes it, and only if it wishes it, he will see that the actual income is the figure taken into account.

Mr. J. Robertson

Why is it that in Scotland the gross annual value is considered to be the proper rent? It is not so in England, where rent is now only half the gross annual value.

Mr. Hendry

We are not concerned here with gross annual value. Under the law of Scotland as at present applied, the assessor was instructed to fix as the gross annual value what he considered to be a reasonable rent between a willing landlord and a willing tenant. That criterion is surely sensible. It seems to me to be logical and to be only fair and reasonable that where a local authority is comparatively poor and has a high level of unemployment due allowance should be made. The thing is logical. There will be an automatic adjustment for local authorities in suitable cases and my hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the Amendment which he has voluntarily offered to us.

I am in complete sympathy with the intention behind the Opposition Amendment, but I am convinced that it is not the best means of dealing with this matter. I think, on the other hand, that my hon. Friend's Amendment is completely logical and will achieve what the whole Committee is trying to bring about.

Mr. Ross

We have two competing Amendments to deal with the same matter. Clause 3 is a punitive measure by which a calculation is made following which a deduction is made from the equalisation grant of certain local authorities. The actual rent of local authority houses is aggregated and there is a definition of the actual rent which we discover to be not the money paid by local authority tenants, but the money which would be paid if they were all paying the full rent. We are not here dealing with areas of high unemployment, for it is not only the unemployed who cannot pay the rent stipulated. There are also old-age pensioners and those who are sick and others to whom, for one reason or another, local authorities rebate rents, perhaps in part, perhaps in full.

What we are arguing about is whether it is fair to consider rents unpaid because of poverty as actual income; in other words, whether the burden of meeting the poverty should be borne not by the whole town, not by the whole city and not by the whole county, but only by local authority tenants. Our Amendment simply argues that actual income should be what it is—actual income; that is to say, money paid. The calculation would leave completely out of account, or take into account—it depends on one's interpretation of those words—the unpaid rents of people receiving rent rebates because of their poverty.

The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) said that the gross annual value was not relevant. He never got things more wrong than with this Amendment. He is straight on his way to becoming either Lord Advocate or Minister of State. The present Minister of State immortalised his defeat by accepting the title of Craigton, the constituency which threw him out. In his new title he has told every Secretary of State that he would go down in history and that everything he did was brilliant. Most of them have gone down, although not in history. He went up and that will happen to the hon. Gentleman if he goes on being as muddle-headed as this.

Gross annual value has been taken as the criterion, but to state that it is fair is to assume that gross annual value is right and to accept the infallibity of the assessors. If the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West had listened to the arguments in Standing Committee from my hon. Friends representing Dunbartonshire and Fife, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay), who pointed out that it was accepted by the Minister in relation to a certain rule Which the Bill is to make, he would have known that there was unfairness in the lack of uniformity of assessment throughout Scotland, so that gross annual value could be wrong. It could be wrong as between one area and another and wrong within an area. If the assessors were infallible, there would be no appeals and, if there were no appeals, there would not be pressure from assessors, as there is now, to delay the next revaluation for another year because of the amount of work now to be done.

The Under-Secretary has accepted our argument in part. We had a good debate on this subject in Standing Committee and there was some recognition of the unfairness and some acceptance of the view that the burden of poverty ought to be borne not by one section of the community, but by all the community. The Under-Secretary has recognised that by more or less saying, "I will give you 5 per cent.". That is not enough. He has to go the whole way to be logical and fair. He is still in the same difficulty as before, when in his fairness he argued himself into the position of justifying the rents of local authority houses which were in excess of gross annual value irrespective of whether that value was fair or unfair.

The hon. Member should see exactly what the Rating and Valuation Act does say about the criterion by which an assessor fixes annual value. It has nothing to do with a willing buyer and a willing seller. This is not a question of buying and selling, but a tenancy. It is the rent which a person would be prepared to pay for a particular house on the assumption that there was an even balance between the person in the house and the person wanting the house. In other words, we are now dealing with the attitudes of the person in a house and the person who would like to be in the house. What the person who is in a house thinks it is worth is sometimes slightly different from the view of the person who would like to be in it. The Under-Secretary has made a fair effort and has gone some of the way, but he has not gone far enough. However, I thank him for cleaning up the Clause and clarifying some of the issues which we raised.

Another question which the hon. Gentleman has not answered is: what is a reasonable rent? This is a slogan which does not mean anything. This is the third or fourth time that he has used the expression "reasonable rent", but he has not fixed it yet. There is now to be another distinction between those authorities who have rent rebate schemes and those who have not. It is to be reasonable to have 85 per cent. of the gross annual value in one case and 95 per cent. in another.

No effort is made to define what kind of rent rebate scheme would be approved by the Secretary of State. The control is left in his hands. Our argument about Dumfries, which we have made time and again, is relevant and is not destroyed by what the Under-Secretary has said. The figure will be 100 per cent. of gross annual value after two years and to say that it is 95 per cent. at the moment means that rents will have to rise in a year or two just to meet the Government's formula. If simply meeting a formula is not justified, nor is the use of a notional calculation.

We think that the whole Clause is wrong and that the Secretary of State is abrogating his duties and rights to interfere with local authorities. He has all the powers in the world without Clause 3 and he has all the influence with local authorities which he requires. At Question Time today we had a Question about infant mortality in Scotland and the Secretary of State said that bad housing was one cause and that the Government were doing everything they could to get rid of it. They are doing everything they can to raise rents and doing less and less each year to see that new houses are built. This is where hon. Members opposite have failed Scotland. They have been almost hypnotised by this question of rents, and it is little wonder

that their support is falling. They may be advised by all the advertising experts on their side of the Committee, but fewer and fewer houses are being built to supplant the slums and to meet the needs of the people of Scotland.

The sooner we get away from this situation and back to reality in the building of houses and dealing with poverty and rent rebates and ensuring that where there is poverty it is borne by the whole community and where there is need for houses that is borne by the whole nation, the better.

That is why we prefer our Amendment, but it is an Amendment to a Clause which we do not like. We shall not oppose the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman because it is an improvement on what is in the Bill, but we must insist on voting for our Amendment and I hope that we shall do so right away.

Question put, That those words be there inserted: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 163, Noes 184.

Division No. 98.] AYES [8.1 p.m.
Abse, Leo Edwards, Walter (Stepney) Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Ainsley, William Fernyhough, E. Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Albu, Austen Finch, Harold Loughlin, Charles
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Fletcher, Eric Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Bacon, Miss Alice Forman, J. C. McBride, N.
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) McCann, John
Beaney, Alan Galpern, Sir Myer MacDermot, Niall
Bence, Cyril Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. McInnes, James
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgton) Gourlay, Harry Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Benson, Sir George Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) McLeavy, Frank
Blackburn, F. Griffiths, W. (Exchange) MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Blyton, William Grimond, Rt. Hon. J. Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Boardman, H. Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Mallalieu,J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Hamilton, William (West Fife) Manuel, Archie
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S.W.) Harper, Joseph Mapp, Charles
Boyden, James Hart, Mrs. Judith Marsh, Richard
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Hayman, F. H. Mason, Roy
Brockway, A. Fenner Henderson,Rt.Hn,Arthur(RwlyRegis) Millan, Bruce
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Herbison, Miss Margaret
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Hill, J. (Midlothian) Mitchison, G. R.
Carmichael, Neil Hilton, A. V. Monslow, Walter
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Holman, Percy Moody, A. S.
Cliffe, Michael Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr) Morris, John
Collick, Percy Hoy, James H. Mulley, Frederick
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Neal, Harold
Crossman, R. H. S. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Oliver, G. M.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) O'Malley, B. K.
Dalyell, Tam Hunter, A. E. Oswald, Thomas
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Hynd, H. (Accrington) Owen, Will
Davies, Harold (Leek) Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Padley, W. E.
Davies, Ifor (Gower) ?tanner. Sir Barnett Parker, John
Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Pa ton, John
Deer, George Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Delargy, Hugh Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Peart, Frederick
Dempsey, James Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Pentland, Norman
Dodds, Norman Kelley, Richard Prentice, R. E.
Donnelly, Desmond Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Driberg, Tom King, Dr. Horace Probert, Arthur
Edelman, Maurice Ledger, Ron Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Lee, Frederick (Newton) Randall, Harry
Rankin, John Sorensen, R. W. Warbey, William
Redhead, E. C. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank Watkins, Tudor
Rhodes, H. Spriggs, Leslie Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) Steele, Thomas Whitlock, William
Robertson, John (Paisley) Stewart, Michael (Fulham) Wllkins, W. A.
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton) Stones, William Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.) Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.) Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Ross, William Swingler, Stephen Willis, E. C. (Edinburgh, E.)
Short, Edward Taverne, D. Winterbottom, R. E.
Silverman, Julius (Aston) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.) Woof, Robert
Skeffington, Arthur Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.) Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) Thornton, Ernest TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Small, William Tomney, Frank Mr. Lawson and Mr. Grey.
Snow, Julian Wainwright, Edwin
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Page, Graham (Crosby)
Allason, James Hastings, Stephen Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Atkins, Humphrey Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Partridge, E.
Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham) Hendry, Forbes Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Balniel, Lord Hill, J. E, B. (S. Norfolk) Peel, John
Barber, Anthony Hocking, Philip N. Percival, Ian
Barlow, Sir John Holland, Philip Pike, Miss Mervyn
Barter, John Hollingworth, John Pitkington, Sir Richard
Batsford, Brian Hornby, R. P. Pott, Percivall
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P. Prior, J. M. L.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm) Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Proudfoot, Wilfred
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald Hughes-Young, Michael Quennell, Miss J. M.
Biff en, John Hutchison, Michael Clark Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Bingham, R. M. Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Rees, Hugh
Bishop, F. P. James, David Renton, Rt. Hon. David
Bourne-Arton, A. Jennings, J. C. Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Braine, Bernard Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Brewis, John Johnston, Eric (Blackley) Roots, William
Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Ropner, Col, Sir Leonard
Brooman-White, R. Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Russell, Ronald
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green) St. Clair, M.
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Kaberry, Sir Donald Seymour, Leslie
Burden, F. A. Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Shaw, M.
Butcher, Sir Herbert Kerby, Capt. Henry Shepherd, William
Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Kershaw, Anthony Smith, Dudley(Br'ntf'd & Chiswich)
Cary, Sir Robert Kitson, Timothy Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig, Sir John
Chichester-Clark, R. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Speir, Rupert
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Leather, Sir Edwin Stevens, Geoffrey
Cleaver, Leonard Leavey, J. A. Steward, Harold (Stockport, S)
Cooper, A. E. Leburn, Gilmour Stodart, J. A.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Corfield, F. V. Lilley, F. J. P. Studholme, Sir Henry
Coulson, Michael Lindsay, Sir Martin Talbot, John E.
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Crawley, Aidan Loveys, Walter H. Taylor, Frank(M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Critchley, Julian Lubbock, Eric Temple, John M.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver McLaren, Martin Thompson,SirRichard(Croydon,S.)
Curran, Charles McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Currie, G. B. H. Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Dalkeith, Earl of Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&N.Ayrs) Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.) Turton, Rt. Hon. R, H.
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F. McMaster, Stanley R. Tweedsmuir, Lady
Digby, Simon Wingfield Macmillan.Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley) van Straubenzee, W. R.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E, M. Maddan, Martin Vane, W. M. F.
Dray son, G. B. Maginnis, John E. Wade, Donald
Duncan, Sir James Maitland, Sir John Wakefield, Sir Waved
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Markham, Major Sir Frank Walder, David
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) walker, Peter
Errington, Sir Eric Mawby, Ray Wall, Patrick
Farey-Jones, F. W. Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Ward, Dame Irene
Finlay, Graeme Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Wells, John (Maidstone)
Fisher, Nigel Mills, Stratton Whitelaw, William
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Miscampbell, Norman Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Montgomery, Fergus Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Gammans, Lady Morrison, John Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
George, Sir John (Pollok) Nabarro, Sir Gerald Woodnutt, Mark
Gibson-Watt, David Neave, Alrey
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) Woollam, John
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) Nicholls, Sir Harmar Worsley, Marcus
Gower, Raymond Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Green, Alan Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Gresham Cook, R. Osborn, John (Hallam) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Osborn, Sir Cyril (Louth) Mr. MacArthur and Mr. Pym.

Amendments made: In page 3, line 9, leave out subsections (2) and (3).

In page 4, line 7, at end insert:

(3) In this section—

  1. (a) references to a council's actual rent income for any year are references to the income receivable for the year by the council and credited to their housing revenue account for the' year under paragraph (a) of section 138(1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1950 in respect of the relevant subjects, together with any sums so credited under subsection (2) or (3) of the said section 138, but excluding any such income as aforesaid which by reason of the granting of any rent rebates is not actually received; and
  2. (b) references to a council's notional rent income for any year are references to such percentage of the aggregate of the gross annual values of the relevant subjects, as shown in the valuation roll for the year in question, as is specified in the second column of the following Table in relation to that year:

Provided that, if he is requested by any council to do so, the Secretary of State shall direct that, in relation to that council and in relation to such year as may be specified in the direction, this section shall have effect as if references therein to the council's notional rent income for that year were references to such percentage of the aggregate of the gross annual values of the relevant subjects, as shown in the valuation roll for the year in question, as is specified in the third column of the said Table in relation to that year, less an amount equal to the aggregate of any rent rebates granted in respect of those subjects by the council for that year in pursuance of any rent rebates scheme approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section.

TABLE
Year Percentage first referred to above Percentage second referred to above
1963–64 85 per cent. 90 per cent.
1964–65 90 per cent. 95 per cent.
Any subsequent year 95 per cent. 100 per cent.

(4) In the last foregoing subsection—

  1. (a) references to the relevant subjects, in relation to any council and in relation to any year, are references to any houses, buildings, land or dwellings let by the council and shown in the valuation roll for that year;
  2. (b) references to the aggregate of the gross annual values of the relevant subjects, in relation to any council, are references to that aggregate exclusive of such part of the gross annual value of any house or dwelling comprised in those subjects as may be certified by the assessor to be attributable to any garage provided otherwise than by the council;
  3. (c) the expression "rent rebates" means rebates to which section 73(4) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1950 or section 29 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1962 refers;
    4. 312
  4. (d) the expression "rent rebates scheme" includes any scheme for the granting of rent rebates (including so much of any rents scheme made under the said section 29 as relates to rent rebates); and
  5. (e) the expression "valuation roll" does not include "supplementary valuation roll".

In line 9, leave out "(2)" and insert "(3)".—[Mr. Leburn.]

Mr. Ross

I beg to move, in page 4, line 10, to leave out "of revaluation".

This is a very important Amendment. Under subsection (5) the Secretary of State takes power, in a year of revaluation, to reduce the figures to which we have already taken exception. There are now two columns. We suggest that he should have this power of reduction in any year. Why wait just for a year of revaluation? Before many months have passed he may well appreciate that he has made a mistake and has been far too hard on Scottish local authorities. We seek to give him power to make this helpful reduction for Scottish local authorities in any year.

Mr. Leburn

The hon. Member has moved the Amendment with great lucidity and has explained exactly what he thinks ought to be done. As I see it, however, we are here concerned with certain methods of calculating a local authority's notional rent income. This is based on gross annual value and, as we have explained in previous debates, we regard this as a proper figure on which to base these calculations. The only factor which would make my right hon. Friend consider making an Order fixing a lower percentage would be a steep rise in gross annual values in a year of revaluation, making it somewhat difficult for local authorities immediately to relate their rents once again to gross annual values if they did not wish to lose or have a reduction in their Exchequer equalisation grants.

In those circumstances an Order might be made allowing for a reduced percentage in a year of revaluation, but that is the only circumstance in which such action would seem appropriate. In those circumstances, I regret to say that I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Willis

I would not object to the reasons given by the hon. Member for the inclusion of this subsection. They seem to be quite appropriate reasons. But I am surprised that he should close his mind to the fact that there might be other reasons why the Government would wish to change the figures. The hon. Member is not gifted with any divine insight into the future. He is not a prophet. We know that members of the Government are a number of things, but I certainly have not associated them with the race of prophets. The hon. Gentleman is being too rigid in this matter.

We are trying to help him. We are trying to help the Government. We are seeking to give them more powers. I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman should reject our generous offer in such a cavalier fashion. It does not tempt us to be helpful in the future.

He must realise that he cannot tell what circumstances might arise in the future which would necessitate a change in these figures. That must be self-evident. If there is a possibility that circumstances might arise that would lead to a change being desirable, let us provide for it. If we read the subsection we find that he can change the figures as may be so specified, as if for the percentage specified for that year in the Table there were substituted such other lower percentages as may be specified in the Order and in relation to any local authority. Surely circumstances might arise in which these figures would be inappropriate in respect of one local authority. A certain area might be hit by severe unemployment, or something of a similar character, in which circumstances it would be ridiculous to maintain the figures in the columns.

All we suggest is that, like very wise men, we ought to take precautions to enable the Government to deal with such a situation if it arises. That would appear to be a reasonable suggestion, and a quite generous offer on the part of the Opposition. The Government ought to accept an Amendment which would allow them to deal with any situation that might arise in the future.

Mr. Ross

I am terribly disappointed at the reaction of the Under-Secretary. I have tried to help him out of a difficulty. He has already convinced us that it is desirable to have this power, because there may be such a steep rise in gross annual values in a year of revaluation that it would be unfair to leave the figures as they are. Let him read what is in the Bill. The Clause provides that The Secretary of State may by order provide that the Table set out in subsection (2) of this section shall have effect as respects any year of revaluation specified in the order… That means that it can be done just in the year of revaluation. Not for another five years will there be any change in the valuation. He admits that it might be unfair in the year of revaluation, but what about the year after that? Might it not be unfair then too?

The hon. Gentleman ought to think about this matter. The Secretary of State is not here to tell him, "This is a reasonable point. For heaven's sake accept the Amendment and save the Government." I advise him to accept the Amendment if he wishes to preserve us from the evils of a steep rise in gross annual values not only in the year of revaluation but in subsequent years.

Will the hon. Gentleman have a very quick look at that? Or does he want me to talk a little longer in order to persuade him that it would be advisable to do this? I fed we ought to press this Amendment to a division from a point of simple justice. But I hope that we shall not be required to press the hon. Gentleman. If he requires this power in a year of revaluation he requires it in the following year, obviously. Has the hon. Gentleman an answer to this? If he has, I should be glad to hear it. Otherwise I think that we shall, in simple justice to the people of Scotland, have to press this matter to a division.

Mr. Leburn

I have listened carefully to what has been said by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). It is true that this power, given to the Secretary of State, has been taken only for the years of revaluation. I make the point—I made it before and I will make it again, and the hon. Gentleman himself took it—that there may be an occasion when it is necessary. I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East. I am not a prophet, and I must work on the circumstances which are foreseeable. The only circumstance I can foresee in which this power would be required is in a year of revaluation when there might be a steep increase in gross annual value.

The gross annual value is a fair and impartial estimate of the rent value of a house. We must get to this point when discussing Clause 3 as it concerns E.E.G. It is one thing to say that local authorities may require one year in which to adjust the position. If they are to be given more than one year we do not set the gross annual value as a standard to be achieved or a percentage of it, when we consider Clause 3—

Mr. Willis

But may I—

Mr. Leburn

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue.

Therefore, I think it reasonable to do this for one year. I admit that hon. Members may argue that in introducing this we are giving local authorities three years with increasing percentages. I appreciate that. But it is one case to phase into a new situation. Having got to that situation and accepted that gross annual value, or a percentage of it, is the standard, that is another case. The only circumstances I can foresee where the Secretary of State might want power to reduce is in a year of revaluation when there might be a steep increase. That being so, I feel that one year is sufficient time in which to get the matter adjusted.

Mr. Millan

Suppose that in a year of revaluation a municipal house value goes up by 50 per cent. on average in an area of a particular local authority. Is the Under-Secretary saying that the adjustment called for in the provisions in Clause 3 should be effected in one year only? Obviously, that is absolutely preposterous. This has been badly drafted. The Government draftsmen have not seen the point, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), that revaluation affects not just the year of revaluation, but the succeeding four years.

We are trying to get the Undersecretary out of a difficulty. I do not see why we should take all this trouble to get him out of a difficulty when he is so determined to put himself into it. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to look at this again. There may be circumstances in a particular area—and this subsection was meant to provide for such circum- stances—where there would be inequity. This is simply an error in drafting. If the power were available, there would be nothing to prevent the Government prescribing one year in an order if that were all they wanted to do. But if they did want phasing, unless this Amendment is accepted, legislation would be needed. The Government have nothing to lose by accepting the Amendment. I hope that the Under-Secretary will accept it and not maintain this ridiculous argument.

Mr. Ross

What is the Under-Secretary afraid of? There is nothing mandatory about this. He may do it; he does not need to do it. Would not it be advisable to have this power? He has taken every other power, not to apply to the whole of Scotland but to a particular local authority in relation to revaluation. Let the hon. Gentleman forget about "Michael the Silent". He is the man in power. Let him accept the Amendment. If the Secretary of State were present, he would know nothing about it anyway—let us be honest. And those in St. Andrew's House who do know something about it would probably give the hon. Gentleman a vote of thanks.

Mr. Leburn

This is not as simple as the hon. Gentleman thinks. If I were to accept the Amendment—and if it were only a question of drafting I would consider the matter—it would be almost giving a hostage to fortune—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Wait—and it would, perhaps, be misleading in giving the impression that in certain circumstances where there is a steep increase in valuation the phasing out is, perhaps, to take place over two, three or four years. The underlying principle behind Clause 3 is that the gross annual value, or a certain percentage, is the standard to be reached for a notional rent, if local authorities do not wish to suffer a deduction of E.E.G. I think it reasonable to take the power for one year. It is different from extending it over a number of years. I am sorry, but I cannot accept the Amendment.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Willis

The Under-Secretary has not answered the point which was made very effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). He drew special attention to the possibility, which the Clause envisages in terms of the Under-Secretary's explanation, that there might be a steep rise in valuation for one local authority. What the hon. Gentleman said does not make sense unless that is the interpretation. If that steep and very unfair rise in valuation takes place for one local authority, that local authority will have lo put up with it for five years. What is the hon. Gentleman going to do about the other four years? If it is necessary to meet the unfairness of the very steep rise for one year for one local authority, it would be most unfair for that one local authority to be picked out. Does not the hon. Gentleman propose to do anything in respect of the other four years?

Mr. Gourlay

I wish to emphasise the point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, East ^Mr. Willis) and for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). This is not a hypothetical situation. It is the situation at present in Fife and Dunbartonshire. The Under-Secretary's Department, with a member of the other place, met representatives of both those authorities earlier this year. There was an undertaking to see what could be done to persuade other local authorities to have a readjustment in Exchequer grant because of the unfair valuations in those areas.

If the Under-Secretary accepted this Amendment, he could relieve those two authorities. As has been stressed, the relief would be not only in one year but in five years from one valuation to the next in which those authorities suffer. I emphasise the appeal made to the hon. Gentleman and ask him to think again and to see whether he can give the necessary relief to authorities which are hard hit.

Mr. Thomas Fraser (Hamilton)

Will the Under-Secretary have another look at this problem? When I saw this Amendment I thought that it should be in the name of the Secretary of State, because I thought it an Amendment which the Government would want to make as the subsection is obviously a mistake. In drafting this subsection, the Government have assumed that the situation might arise in a subsequent year of revaluation, 1966–67, in which in the area of one or more local authorities there will be an exceptionally steep rise in valuation. It should be borne in mind that most of the valuation areas comprise several local authorities. Those authorities would be seen by the Government of the day to have had a steep rise in valuation.

All that the Government seem to have done by this subsection is to have taken power to make allowances in the calculation of what is a fair rent for a council house in an authority's area in which there has been an exceptionally steep and unfair rise. The Under-Secretary says that an order will be made to give relief to the housing authority in the valuation area for the purposes of one year. In the remaining four years of the quinquennium that group of authorities within the area will have a level of notional rent to which they must rise greatly in excess of the level to which he will expect the rest of the country to seek to rise.

In view of what we all understand to have been the undertaking of the Minister of State to local authorities in Fife, Dunbartonshire and Renfrewshire, we are seeking to ensure that in future the Government will proceed, presumably by amended legislation, to see that appellants against high gross annual value may make their appeals on the ground that the annual value is unreasonably high in relation to the general level of valuations throughout Scotland. That is the kind of promise that has been made. As that has not been done and the time for making appeals against the 1961 revaluation has expired, would the Undersecretary not wish to be able to do something for those local housing authorities in areas which have an unreasonably high valuation under the existing revaluation of 1956–61?

If he wanted to do something for them, he would accept this Amendment so that he could make the order at any time. He could make it now and substitute alternative figures for those in the subsection for Fife, Dunbartonshire and Renfrewshire. He may not wish to do that, but would he not want to have the power to do it?

If we have a similar situation arising in 1966—it could be in the same valuation area, it could be Fife—what does the Minister propose to do? Suppose that in 1966 the Fife valuation for local authority houses were 20 per cent. higher than the average valuation for local authority houses in industrial towns in Scotland. Would the Under-Secretary think it enough to make an order under Clause 3(5) to deal with the provision in the County of Fife for the year 1967 and no other year? Would that be fair? Presumably, following the subsequent revaluation at the end of another quinquennium, he would make another order for the year 1972. Is this the way in which he imagines that the Government should go about their business? Surely not. Surely the whole object of putting the subsection into the Clause is to enable the Secretary of State by means of a Statutory Instrument to introduce some measure of equity when inequity has seemed to flow from revaluation. If that is not the object, then I cannot see the object of subsection (5).

I wish that the Under-Secretary of State would take my hon. Friend's advice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said, there is nothing mandatory in our proposal. We are merely removing what appears to be a foolish limitation which has crept into the situation. The Secretary of State will still have power to apply his order to any one authority or any group of authorities. He will do it only for those who have been badly hit by an unreasonable revaluation. If it is good enough to do it for one year, it must be good enough to do it for the remaining four years of the quinquennium.

Will he not take this power? If he or any of his successors did not feel that the situation warranted the exercise of the power, then it would not be exercised and the order would not be made. Surely he will assume responsibility as Minister in charge of a Bill, for accepting this very reasonable Amendment.

Mr. Leburn

I am always prepared to accept responsibility for dealing with Amendments. On the face of it, the speech of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) was persuasive, but where he goes wrong is in the fact that his whole argument is based on the assumption that the Secretary of State will be the judge as to what is a fair and reasonable assessment of any group of authorities or, for that matter, any single authority. I could not accept that situation for one moment. The position is that we accept the valuations of the assessors throughout Scotland as being able to bring us to a uniform valuation. Where anyone feels aggrieved there is the normal valuation appeal procedure. I do not think that it would be right for the Secretary of State to set himself up as a judge in this matter.

That is quite a different thing from saying that there may be a steep rise for one year which deserves special consideration. We agree that we cannot look behind these valuations. While we accept the valuations and accept that they are uniform, it might well be that there were circumstances in which for one year, if there were a steep rise, it would be right and proper for the Secretary of State to give some relief. But we cannot get away from the fact that the values brought out by the assessor will bring us towards uniformity. We have introduced a new provision in the Bill whereby appellants will be given an opportunity to make comparisons with other areas so that all the time we are getting towards greater uniformity, although even now we have a much greater uniformity than ever before and we hope as years go on to get greater uniformity still. Giving some relief for one year is different from perhaps carrying over for one, two, three, four or five years, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, because that would be getting away altogether from the principle that the gross annual values are a fair and impartial assessment of this value. I have listened very carefully to all that has been said, but I do not feel justified in accepting the Amendment.

Mr. T. Fraser

If the Under-Secretary has such confidence that there are at present uniform valuations and that there will be increasingly uniform valuations—or, as he said, more and more uniform valuations—in future, why does he want the power to make an Order which will apply to one local authority in Scotland? Does not the hon. Gentleman take the power to make the Order applicable to one local authority or a group of local authorities as he sees fit because he recognises that there has been a very steep rise, to use the words he used in his first speech on the Amendment, in the valuation of houses in the area of one local authority or in a group of local authorities?

Does he not recognise that the whole object of inserting this subsection is to deal with the situation where there has manifestly been a departure from this uniformity which he recognises will always flow from the present system of valuation for rating? Is not that so?

Mr. Leburn

The only conclusion I would draw from that is that I might seriously have to consider whether the Secretary of State should have power to do it for such local authority or local authorities.

Mr. Ross

It is depressingly difficult to persuade the Under-Secretary to see sense on this point. What destroys his whole argument is the fact that these words are there at all. If they are necessary for one year, they might well be necessary for a

second year or a third year. The hon. Gentlemen's persistence in failing to recognise our argument is to deny the historical fact of what has happened in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton), what has happened in relation to Dumbarton and what happened before revaluation took place in Bearsden. In view of the attitude of the Under-Secretary, we must proceed right away to force our Amendment to a Division.

Question put, That "of revaluation" stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 194, Noes 159.

Division No. 99.] AYES [8.43 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter Foster, John Macpherson,Rt.Hn.Niall(Dumfries)
Allason, James Gammans, Lady Maddan, Martin
Atkins, Humphrey George, Sir John (Pollok) Maginnie, John E.
Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham) Gibson-Watt, David Maitland, Sir John
Balniel, Lord Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) Markham, Major Sir Frank
Barber, Anthony Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Barlow, Sir John Gower, Raymond Mawby, Ray
Barter, John Green, Alan Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Batsford, Brian Gresham Cooke, R. Maydon, Lt.-Clinch. S. L. C.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm) Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Mills, Stratton
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald Harris, Reader (Heaton) Miscampbell, Norman
Biffen, John Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Montgomery, Fergus
Bingham, R. M. Hastings, Stephen Morrison, John
Bishop, F. P. Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Bourne-Arton, A. Hendry, Forbes Heave, Airey
Box, Donald Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Braine, Bernard Hocking, Philip N. Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Brewis, John Holland, Philip Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter Hollingworth, John Osborn, John (Hallam)
Brooman-White, R. Hornby, R. P. Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P. Page, Graham (Crosby)
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Burden, F. A. Hughes-Young, Michael Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Butcher, Sir Herbert Hutchison, Michael Clark Peel, John
Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Percival, Ian
Carr, Robert (Mitcham) James, David Pike, Miss Mervyn
Cary, Sir Robert Jennings, J. C. Pilkington, Sir Richard
Chataway, Christopher Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Pott, Percivall
Chichester-Clark, R. Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Prior, J. M. L.
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Proudfoot, Wilfred
Clarke,Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Pym, Francis
Cleaver, Leonard Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green) Quennell, Miss J. M.
Cooke, Robert Kaberry, Sir Donald Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Kerans, Cdr, J. S.
Cooper, A. E. Kerby, Capt. Henry Renton, Rt. Hon. David
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Kerr, Sir Hamilton Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Corfield, F. V. Kershaw, Anthony Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Coulson, Michael Kitson, Timothy Roots, William
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Lancaster, Col. C. C. Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Critchley, Julian Langford-HoIt, Sir John Russell, Ronald
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Cot. Sir Oliver Leather, Sir Edwin St. Clair, M.
Curran, Charles Leavey, J. A. Seymour, Leslie
Currie, G. B. H. Leburn, Gilmour Shaw, M.
Dalkeith, Earl of Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Shepherd, William
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Lilley, F. J. P. Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F. Lindsay, Sir Martin Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield) Speir, Rupert
Drayson, C. B. Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Stevens, Geoffrey
Duncan, Sir James Lubbock, Eric Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Eden, John MacArthur, Ian Stodart, J. A.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) McLaren, Martin Studholme, Sir Henry
Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia Talbot, John E.
Emmet, Hen. Mrs. Evelyn Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Errington, Sir Eric Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&N.Ayrs) Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Farey-Jones, F. W. Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.) Temple, John M.
Farr, John McMaster, Stanley R. Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S,)
Finlay, Graeme Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley) Thornton-Kemsfey, Sir Cohn
Fisher, Nigel Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) Thorpe, Jeremy
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.) Wakefield, Sir Wavell Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Tilney, John (Wavertree) Walder, David Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon Walker, Peter Woodnutt, Mark
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H. Wall, Patrick Woollam, John
Tweedsmuir, Lady Ward, Dame Irene Worsley, Marcus
van Straubenzee, W. R. Wells, John (Maidstone) Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Vane, W. M. F. Whitelaw, William
Wade, Donald Williams, Dudley (Exeter) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mr. Ian Fraser and Mr. Rees.
NOES
Abse, Leo Hart, Mrs. Judith Pentland, Norman
Ainsley, William Hayman, F. H. Prentice, R. E.
Albu, Austen Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Herbison, Miss Margaret Probert, Arthur
Bacon, Miss Alice Hill, J. (Midlothian) Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Hilton, A. V. Randall, Harry
Beaney, Alan Holman, Percy Rankin, John
Bence, Cyril Hoy, James H. Redhead, E. C.
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Rhodes, H.
Benson, Sir George Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Blackburn, F. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Robertson, John (Paisley)
Blyton, William Hunter, A. E. Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Boardman, H. Hynd, H. (Accrington) Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Ross, William
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics.S.W.) Janner, Sir Barnett Short, Edward
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Brockway, A, Fenner Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Skeffington, Arthur
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Carmichael, Neil Kelley, Richard Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Small, William
Cliffe, Michael King, Dr. Horace Snow, Julian
Collick, Percy Lawson, George Sorensen, R. W.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Lee, Frederick (Newton) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Crossman, R. H. S. Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Spriggs, Leslie
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) Steele, Thomas
Dalyell, Tam Loughlin, Charles Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Stones, William
Davies, Harold (Leek) McBride, N. Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) MacDermot, Niall Swingler, Stephen
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) McInnes, James Taverne, D.
Deer, George McLeavy, Frank Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Delargy, Hugh MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Dempsey, James Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Thomas Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Dodds, Norman Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.) Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Donnelly, Desmond Manuel, Archie Thornton, Ernest
Driberg, Tom Mapp, Charles Tomney, Frank
Edelman, Maurice Mason, Roy Wainwright, Edwin
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Millan, Bruce Warbey, William
Fernyhough, E. Milne, Edward Watkins, Tudor
Finch, Harold Mitchison, G. R. Weitzman, David
Fletcher, Eric Monslow, Walter Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Forman, J. C. Moody, A. S. Whitlock, William
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Morris, John Wilkins, W. A.
Galpern, Sir Myer Mulley, Frederick Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Neal, Harold Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Gourlay, Harry Oliver, G. H. Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Grey, Charles O'Malley, B. K. Winterbottom, R. E.
Griffiths, David (Bother Valley) Oswald, Thomas Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Padley, W. E. Woof, Robert
Griffiths, W. (Exchange) Parker, John Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Paton, John
Hamilton, William (West Fife) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Harper, Joseph Peart, Frederick Mr. Charles A. Howell and
Mr. McCann.

Amendments made: In page 4, line 12, leave out "percentage" and insert "percentages".

In line 13, leave out "percentage" and insert "percentages".—[Mr. Leburn.]

Question put, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 189, Noes 153.

Division No. 100.] AYES [8.55 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter Barber, Anthony Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Allason, James Barlow, Sir John Biffen, John
Atkins, Humphrey Barter, John Bingham, R. M.
Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham) Batsford, Brian Bishop, F. P.
Balniel, Lord Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm) Bourne-Arton, A.
Box, Donald Hornby, R. P. Peel, John
Braine, Bernard Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P. Percival, Ian
Brewis, John Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Pike, Miss Mervyn
Brooman-White, R. Hughes-Young, Michael Pilkington, Sir Richard
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Hutchison, Michael Clark Pott, Percivall
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Prior, J. M. L.
Burden, F. A. James, David Proudfoot, Wilfred
Butcher, Sir Herbert Jennings, J. C. Pym, Francis
Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Quennell, Miss J. M.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Cary, Sir Robert Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Renton, Rt. Hon. David
Chataway, Christopher Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Chichester-Clark, R. Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green) Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Kaberry, Sir Donald Roots, William
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, w.) Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Cleaver, Leonard Kerr, Sir Hamilton Russell, Ronald
Cooke, Robert Kershaw, Anthony St. Clair, M.
Cooper, A. E. Kitson, Timothy Seymour, Leslie
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Shaw, M.
Corfield, F. V. Langford-Holt, Sir John Shepherd, William
Coulson, Michael Leather, Sir Edwin Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Craddock, Sir Beresford(Spelthorne) Leavey, J. A. Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John
Critchley, Julian Leburn, Gilmour Speir, Rupert
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Stevens, Geoffrey
Curran, Charles Lilley, F. J. P. Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Currie, G. B. H. Lindsay, Sir Martin Stodart, J, A.
Dalkeith, Earl of Lioyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Studholme, Sir Henry
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Lubbock, Eric Talbot, John E.
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F. MacArthur, Ian Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. McLaren, Martin Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Drayson, G. B. McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia Temple, John M.
Duncan, Sir James Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Eden, John Maclean, SirFitzroy(Bute&N.Ayrs) Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Elliott, R.W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) McMaster, Stanley R. Thorpe, Jeremy
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley) Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Errington, Sir Eric Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Farey-Jones, F. W. Macpherson, Rt. Hn. Niall(Dumfries) Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Farr, John Maddan, Martin Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Fisher, Nigel Maginnis, John E. Tweedsmuir, Lady
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Maitland, Sir John van Straubenzee, W. R.
Gammans, Lady Markham, Major Sir Frank Vane, W. M. F.
George, Sir John (Pollok) Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) Wade, Donald
Gibson-Watt, David Mawby, Ray Wakefield, Sir Wavell
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Walder, David
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) Maydon, Lt.Cmdr, S. L. C. Walker, Peter
Gower, Raymond Miscampbell, Norman Wall, Patrick
Green, Alan Montgomery, Fergus Ward, Dame Irene
Gresham Cooke, R. Morrison, John Wells, John (Maidstone)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Nabarro, Sir Gerald Whitelaw, William
Harris, Reader (Heston) Neave, Airey Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Nicholls, Sir Harmar Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Hastings, Stephen Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Oakshott, Sir Hendrie Woodnutt, Mark
Hendry, Forbes Osborn, John (Hallam) Woollam, John
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Worsley, Marcus
Hocking, Philip N. Page, Graham (Crosby) Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Holland, Philip Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Hollingworth, John Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mr. Finlay and Mr. Rees.
NOES
Abse, Leo Collick, Percy Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Ainsley, William Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Gourlay, Harry
Albu, Austen Crossman, R. H. S. Grey, Charles
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Cullen, Mrs. Alice Griffiths, David (Rather Valley)
Bacon, Miss Alice Dalyell, Tam Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Beaney, Alan Davies, Harold (Leek) Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Bence, Cyril Davies, Ifor (Gower) Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Harper, Joseph
Benson, Sir George Deer, George Hart, Mrs. Judith
Blackburn, F. Delargy, Hugh Hayman, F. H.
Blyton, William Dempsey, James Henderson, Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Boardman, H. Dodds, Norman Herbison, Miss Margaret
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Driberg, Tom Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S.W.) Edelman, Maurice Hilton, A. V.
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness(Caerphilly) Holman, Percy
Brockway, A. Fenner Fernyhough, E. Hoy, James H.
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Finch, Harold Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Fletcher, Eric Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Carmichael, Neil Forman, J. C. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Hunter, A. E.
Cliffe, Michael Galpern, Sir Myer Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Oliver, G. H. Steele, Thomas
Janner, Sir Barnett O'Malley, B. K. Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Oswald, Thomas Stones, William
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Padley, W. E. Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Parker, John Swingler, Stephen
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Taverne, D.
Kelley, Richard Peart, Frederick Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
King, Dr. Horace Pentland, Norman Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Lawson, George Prentice, R. E. Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermilne)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Probert, Arthur Thornton, Ernest
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) Pursey, Cmdr. Harry Tomney, Frank
Loughlin, Charles Randall, Harry
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Rankin, John Wainwright, Edwin
McBride, N. Redhead, E. C. Warbey, William
MacDermot, Niall Rhodes, H. Watkins, Tudor
McInnes, James Weitzman, David
McLeavy, Frank Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Robertson, John (Paisley) Whitlock, William
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton) Wilkins, W. A.
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.) Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.) Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Manuel, Archie Ross, William Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Mapp, Charles Short, Edward Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Mason, Roy Silverman, Julius (Aston) Winterbottom, R. E.
Millan, Bruce Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Milne, Edward Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.) Woof, Robert
Mitchison, G. R. Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Moody, A. S. Small, William
Morris, John Sorensen, R. W. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mulley, Frederick Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank Mr. Charles A. Howell and
Neal, Harold Spriggs, Leslie Mr. McCann.